Looking again at Laver's 1969 - Exploding the Grass/Clay only Myth

By the way, Drakulie, I'm all for talking about the variety of surfaces today (eg, Deco and Rebound Ace) and the variety of surfaces back then. If someone doesn't want to talk about these things because the surfaces have changed too much and such comparisons are unfair to certain players, fine, but that cuts in both directions.

I wouldn't say that Rebound Ace doesn't count. But it doesn't count according to your own logic. Laver never had a chance to play on it, never could have had a chance to face that challenge -- just as Federer can't possibly win any tournaments on wood, or win 3 majors on grasscourt venues that played very differently.

You said it is "completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold todays players to the standards he set when winning the 69 Calendar Slam, because as I have said, it is absolutely impossible for any players today or into the future to have a chance at it, unless 3 slams are again played on grass, and one on clay."

Then it follows that it is completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold yesterday's players to the standards of today, because as we said, it was impossible for any players of Laver's time to have a chance at it, since none of the Slams were played on hardcourt.

Click to expand...

I think you forget that I am not the one holding Laver to todays standards, nor holding todays players to Lavers standards.

People like you are the ones to quickly point out that no player since laver has won the calendar slam, and yada, yada, yada to talk about his greatness, and put everyone else down as if players today could even attempt to win 3 majors on grass and one on clay in one given year.

What are you talking about? Laver couldn't play the 4 majors that exist today between 1963-1967, because they were only open to amateur players. Also, he didn't play at the 1970 Australian Open because of politics (NTL dispute with authorities), the 1970 French Open (WCT dispute with authorities), 1971 US Open (increasing hostility between the ILTF and the WCT), the 1972 French Open and 1972 Wimbledon (WCT players banned by the ILTF), and 1973 Wimbledon had the 81 player boycott over the ILTF banning Nikola Pilic.

Despite all this, Laver could still do the CYGS in the amateurs, professionals and in the open era.

I suppose he was the ONLY player during all that time you cite that was effected.

Click to expand...

I said that the professional players were banned from the 4 majors, as we know them today, before the open era started in April 1968, so no, it didn't just affect Laver. The point is, the criteria was different back then.

The best players back then didn't win Wimbledon 5 years in a row, because they would have turned professional long before that. Roy Emerson was the only player after the Second World War to dominate in the amateurs and resist turning professional for years on end. The other great players from the 1930s onwards all turned professional, players like Tilden, Nusslein, Vines, Perry, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo and Laver, all turned professional before long. In Nusslein's case, he barely played any amateur tennis at all.

None of these great players ever had the opportunity to do things like win 5 Wimbledons in a row. Gonzales only once played at Wimbledon as an amateur (1949), and didn't set foot there again until the Wimbledon Pro tournament of 1967, when he was 39. Kramer played Wimbledon just twice, reaching the R16 in 1946 and winning the tournament in 1947. 1947 was the last time Kramer played at Wimbledon because he turned professional later that year, and the open era was more than 20 years away.

I think you forget that I am not the one holding Laver to todays standards, nor holding todays players to Lavers standards.

People like you are the ones to quickly point out that no player since laver has won the calendar slam, and yada, yada, yada to talk about his greatness, and put everyone else down as if players today could even attempt to win 3 majors on grass and one on clay in one given year.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't hold today's player to Laver's standards, because those standards including winning tournaments on wood, and facing the challenges of 3 grasscourt venues that played differently. And of course Federer can't do those things. There's no chance, no opportunity, for him to do it.

But you've always emphasized that the players of Laver's time did not have a hardcourt major -- even though there was no chance, no opportunity, for them to face that challenge.

And you've always emphasized how today's players not only have a hardcourt major, they've got radically different kinds of hardcourts that they've had to master. Deco, RA, Plexicushion. You give the players today credit for these things, and point out continually that Laver's time did not have even one hardcourt major.

All right, everyone. Gather around. Hush. If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of someone holding yesterday's players to the hardcourt standards of today, and judging yesterday's standard to be inferior.

^^You have a serious comrehension problem and are taking my posts out of context. Go back, read, and try and follow the course of the conversation.

Click to expand...

Listen, if you're really serious that you don't hold any players to the standards of another generation, then you won't fault Laver's generation for not having to win a hardcourt major, just as you won't fault Federer for not having won any titles on wood. But every statement I've ever seen you make in this forum, about surfaces, has been about how the surface variety of the Slams, back then, is inferior to what exists today -- and the reason you always give is that THEY did not have something that WE have TODAY (ie, a hardcourt major).

If that is not holding yesterday's generation to the standards of today, then nothing is.

You can't hold Federer and Laver to the standard of another era because the conditions/situations weren't available. But there are some truth that you have to take into consideration. Fed doesn't get to play in a split fields, and he had to compete in a bigger pool. So if you want to compare title per title between Fed's era and Laver's era, Fed should have more weight. If you insist on they all have equal weight(e.g. Emerson 12 slams is equal to today's 12 slams), you are selling today's players short.

Wouldn't that be like saying the best soccer player in the English Premier League(EPL) can't consider be the better player than the best player in the USA Soccer League? With the EPL being a much bigger pool(and more countries) than the league in the USA, one has to consider(objectively) the player in EPL is a better player.

Those defending Laver do in fact always bring up the difficulties and varieties of Lavers surfaces, even though they weren't majors. They do this because most people recognize and point out that grass/clay were the two surfaces during Laver's era, so they then start naming carpet, wood, hard court tournaments as if these were suppose to be majors as well. Are we then to believe there weren't 4 majors during Laver's time, rather, 20 or 30 in a given year? :roll:

Moose points out that the grass during Lavers era was different from one another. Well, deco turf and rebound ace (two hard court majors) are much further apart than two different types of grass. Aditionally, Rebound ace was never any picnic to play on. But I suppose it doesn't count since Laver didn't play on it.

Click to expand...

Forget which tournaments were played on which surface. Doesn't the fact that Laver played on crazy stuff like wood just mean his overall year would have been tougher for him to contend with? Didn't that mean he had more adjustments to make, more abrupt shifts between surfaces that would have messed with his game and his consistency? It's not just about the majors he won - it's about what he had to do in between those majors. Laver didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing his tournaments the way a guy like Federer does; he still had to pay the bills, so he had to play pretty much everything he was physically able to play. If you don't think that gives a decided edge to Laver in terms of his accomplishments, you're daft.

Didn't that mean he had more adjustments to make, more abrupt shifts between surfaces that would have messed with his game and his consistency? It's not just about the majors he won - it's about what he had to do in between those majors. Laver didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing his tournaments the way a guy like Federer does; he still had to pay the bills, so he had to play pretty much everything he was physically able to play. If you don't think that gives a decided edge to Laver in terms of his accomplishments, you're daft.

Click to expand...

That's a nice point, and easy to forget with all the focus on majors and the constant debates about the Grand Slam.

If you look at Federer's 2011 tournaments, he played different surfaces, but in solid uninterrupted blocks. He played all hardcourt tournaments through March, followed by a stretch of clay that ended at Wimbledon. From there all his remaining tournaments were hardcourt. He made the switched from outdoor to indoor tournaments once in the season (his last 3 tournaments were indoors).

That's not to say that he faced no changes in that time period. He went through different kinds of hardcourt (but that's true of Laver too). And he switched from outdoor to indoor (but that was certaintly true of Laver).

Laver's schedule in '69, I don't have the details of. But I doubt he got to play the different surfaces in uninterrupted blocks -- if only because it was such chaos at the start of the Open Era!

You can't hold Federer and Laver to the standard of another era because the conditions/situations weren't available. But there are some truth that you have to take into consideration. Fed doesn't get to play in a split fields, and he had to compete in a bigger pool. So if you want to compare title per title between Fed's era and Laver's era, Fed should have more weight. If you insist on they all have equal weight(e.g. Emerson 12 slams is equal to today's 12 slams), you are selling today's players short.

Wouldn't that be like saying the best soccer player in the English Premier League(EPL) can't consider be the better player than the best player in the USA Soccer League? With the EPL being a much bigger pool(and more countries) than the league in the USA, one has to consider(objectively) the player in EPL is a better player.

Click to expand...

Laver´s competition was 3 times tougher than Federer talking about the big boys, which are the ones that are able to win the majors.Nº 47 or nº 76 will never win a single major, they don´t count at all.Just top 10-15-20.

Some have depreciated Laver's open Grand Slam year - by saying - "yes but he only played it on Grass and Clay" - as if that takes anything away from it.

However, it is worth looking at Laver's 1969. Did he in fact win the top hard court titles of the year and why we are talking about it, did he win the top indoor events? Did he in effect make a clean sweep of the top tournaments on all surfaces?

The top hard court titles in 1969 were:

The South African Open - Laver won that in the March over Frew McMillan
The US Pro Championship (played on Outdoor Uni-Turf). Laver won that over John Newcombe

The top indoor court titles in 1969 were:

British Covered Court Championships - Laver won that over Tony Roche
Philadelphia - Laver won that over Tony Roche

One might throw in the BBC2 World Professional Championship & the Madison Square Garden Invitational - Laver won both of them also.

------------------

What do people think? Should people get off Laver's back about his Grand Slam 'only being on Grass and Clay'? Were there more prestiguous hard and indoor titles in 1969 that I have missed (perhaps in 1969 the Pacific Southwest which Laver didn't win (he won it in 1968 and 1970) - was it more prestigous hard court event than the ones I listed)?

Based on what he's stated, I believe that Laver is a Fed fan. Also, it appears that Fed has profound respect for Laver.

One can be a fan of both, as I am.

Click to expand...

Of course you can enjoy the styles of both players. I like to enjoy the different playing styles of different players. Nadal and Federer have very different ways of play but I enjoy watching them both in action. Laver and Federer have very different styles but I enjoy both.

Sometimes I do think some believe it's impossible to like more than one player or perhaps just a few.

Laver´s competition was 3 times tougher than Federer talking about the big boys, which are the ones that are able to win the majors.Nº 47 or nº 76 will never win a single major, they don´t count at all.Just top 10-15-20.

You are wrong in so many occasions, especially this one. NSK goof off quite often too in the General Player Forum.

Click to expand...

Pietrangeli,Santana,Hoad,Gonzales,Emmo,Fraser,Stolle,Rosewall,Newcombe,Roche,Kodes,Nasty,Smith,Gimeno,Ashe plus Okker,Taylor,Drysdale,Richey,Lutz,Kodes,Franulovic,Pilic,Ralston,Cox,Fillol,young Orantes,Froehling,Graebner...ALL OF THEM TRYING TO STOP LAVER´S RUN AT THE GRS...If Federer,Nadal or anybody else just sat down and looked up at a draw and saw ALL THOSE NMAES PUT TOGETHER, they´d probably faint right on the spot.No matter which size the draws ( rest are mere journeymen)....this is the final proof of Laver greatness.The toughest field ever and HE STILL WINS THE BIG 4 TH¡¡¡¡¡ IN A ROW¡¡¡¡¡

In another thread when discussing the top events of 1969 - the Pacific Southwest (won by Pancho Gonzales that year) was rated over the South African Open. Hence, is the Pacific Southwest the number 1 1969 Hard Court event?

Its difficult to rank events in a specific order, say Super Nine events. You have to consider draws, format, tradition, prize money, importance for world ranking, press coverage, reception in year books among other things. In the early open era it changes from year to year. In Tennis World, the yearbook for 1969 edited by John Barrett, the South African Champs was ranked the 5th most important event of the year. It got a special report alongside the 4 majors plus the German and Italian Champs. In the Enzyclopedia Britannica yearbook for 1969, is was also ranked the 5th most important event in an article by Lance Tingay. The SA Open had a broad and good field (96), had best of 5 all the way.
The LA had a 64 field, best of 3. In 1968 the LA event had special importance, because it was one of the only 8 open tournaments. As the last of those open events it had special meaning for the World ranking of 1968. In 1970, it also was important for the top ranking. In 1971 it went down in importance, because it was skipped by the WCT players. Berkeley for instance had the much better field in 1971, with all the WCT top players plus Stan Smith and i think Nastase.